|
0 members (),
205
guests, and
28
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,428 |
The goal of anti-tracking extremists is to destroy education for more able students. This could certainly also be classified as an "extremist" view. (Why would that really be anyone's goal? The goal is educational equity, although there is surely some politics and some "the top end does fine without our help and we don't need to worry" mixed in there. I don't really have a dog in the fight on tracking though I do have one completely "tracked" child in a gifted magnet--which, IIRC, you also oppose...)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,260 Likes: 8 |
The link provided is a brief of a brief. Looking for a source document on the research which informed these views: Educational research shows that mid- and low-ability students benefit from being in classrooms with higher-ability students. I believe the research also shows that higher-ability students do not benefit from this, at least academically, but they also do not actually suffer. This research is why "tracking" went away.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,856 |
Again, this is just off the charts extremist propaganda. It is agenda driven. It is not honest. Propaganda? Agenda driven? Looks like it's data-driven to me: The Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) was a comprehensive survey of mathematics taught and learned around the world. Twenty-two nations participated in this broad and longitudinal study that took place from 1976 to 1989. SIMS researchers Kifer, Wolfe, and Schmidt (1993) identified four levels of 8th grade math study typically found in most American middle or junior high schools, which they termed remedial, regular, enriched, and algebra.*
For the SIMS study, 8th graders in all four tracks completed a pretest of pre-algebra arithmetic skills at the beginning of the year. Researchers examined the distribution of scores on the test by student and by math track. Although it was expected that class-type performance would be different, Kifer and colleagues' (1993) analysis of student and classroom performance found considerable score overlap among tracks.
Only half of the students who achieved the top 10 scores on the pretest and one-third of the students in the top 25 had actually been placed in the algebra-level classes. Inequities existed on the other end of the proficiency spectrum as well: Nearly 50 percent of the students assigned to remedial classes had scores that were better than 25 percent of the students in general math. In addition, Kifer and colleagues found that 5 of the 23 remedial classes had higher mean scores than 75 percent of the students in general math, 50 percent of the students in pre-algebra, and 25 percent of the students in algebra. Oh, look. Science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113 |
But what about larger groups at the upper levels. What about top 5%, top 10%, top 20%, top 50%. Or what about students between percentiles 75 and 90? Why shouldn't all students at all levels be entitled to be taught at their approximate level? There should be classes catering to all levels, and placement in these classes should be purely meritocratic. This merit should not be compromised to fulfil other types of quotas. As long as everyone is being taught at their approximate level, how could it possibly matter if there are measurable demographic differences between the classes? I've never seen any convincing argument not to do what I'm suggesting. I agree with you. Group by ability whenever it makes sense, which I think is as early as KG, and let the demographic chips fall where they may. Make the grouping flexible, so that children can move to different groups at least annually, and so that grouping is done by subject. However, even if ability grouping is done right, the presence of racial and SES gaps in academic achievement will mean that some groups will be very underrepresented in the top classes. Civil rights leaders will condemn these "disparities" and will not accept the main explanation that I would offer. In order to have realistic and effective educational policies, certain realities need to be widely understood. In the mean time, affluent parents self-segregate by moving to areas with "good schools" and send their children to after school programs that are not concerned with diversity. ITA. 'Grouping is done by subject' (above) is important. AFAIK, 'tracking' involves grouping across subjects. On the other hand, I'd rather have 'tracking' than nothing at all (as it is now).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113 |
Again, this is just off the charts extremist propaganda. It is agenda driven. It is not honest. Propaganda? Agenda driven? Looks like it's data-driven to me: The Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) was a comprehensive survey of mathematics taught and learned around the world. Twenty-two nations participated in this broad and longitudinal study that took place from 1976 to 1989. SIMS researchers Kifer, Wolfe, and Schmidt (1993) identified four levels of 8th grade math study typically found in most American middle or junior high schools, which they termed remedial, regular, enriched, and algebra.*
For the SIMS study, 8th graders in all four tracks completed a pretest of pre-algebra arithmetic skills at the beginning of the year. Researchers examined the distribution of scores on the test by student and by math track. Although it was expected that class-type performance would be different, Kifer and colleagues' (1993) analysis of student and classroom performance found considerable score overlap among tracks.
Only half of the students who achieved the top 10 scores on the pretest and one-third of the students in the top 25 had actually been placed in the algebra-level classes. Inequities existed on the other end of the proficiency spectrum as well: Nearly 50 percent of the students assigned to remedial classes had scores that were better than 25 percent of the students in general math. In addition, Kifer and colleagues found that 5 of the 23 remedial classes had higher mean scores than 75 percent of the students in general math, 50 percent of the students in pre-algebra, and 25 percent of the students in algebra. Oh, look. Science. So it looks like grouping for tracking was (very often) done badly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113 |
BTW, to clarify: in the expression 'grouping by ability' I do not mean 'innate ability' (e. g., something normally measured by IQ tests), but instead the 'ability to handle a specific course at the specific time'.
E. g., one student could spend 2 h / week on a course, while another may spend 15 h / week.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
The goal of anti-tracking extremists is to destroy education for more able students. This could certainly also be classified as an "extremist" view. (Why would that really be anyone's goal? The goal is educational equity, although there is surely some politics and some "the top end does fine without our help and we don't need to worry" mixed in there. I don't really have a dog in the fight on tracking though I do have one completely "tracked" child in a gifted magnet--which, IIRC, you also oppose...) If you look around the world, and throughout history, you will find people who have wanted to destroy good things. People certainly do have goals like that, as you are perfectly well aware. In the United States there are some extremely nasty adversarial fights, and strategies include what amounts to burning your opponent's crops. This is definitely a phenomenon in education. The primary obstacle to getting a good education is that movements who have the power to do so are choosing to deny that opportunity. Even though you say "The goal is educational equity" I really doubt that anyone truly believes that, any more than they would believe that forcing all 7 year olds to wear exactly size 7 clothing would enforce "clothing equity". I'm sure you understand the logic. I've no idea why you would say I "oppose" a "gifted magnet". Around here there is no such thing. There are "magnet" schools. There are "gifted" schools. They are two completely different things.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113 |
If you look around the world, and throughout history, you will find people who have wanted to destroy good things. People certainly do have goals like that, as you are perfectly well aware. In the United States there are some extremely nasty adversarial fights, and strategies include what amounts to burning your opponent's crops. This is definitely a phenomenon in education. The primary obstacle to getting a good education is that movements who have the power to do so are choosing to deny that opportunity. Yes. ... "The goal is educational equity" I really doubt that anyone truly believes that, any more than they would believe that forcing all 7 year olds to wear exactly size 7 clothing would enforce "clothing equity". Re. whether it is a 'true' belief: many people *truly* think along the lines of 'they already have it good'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,228 |
...broad and longitudinal study that took place from 1976 to 1989... Oh, look. Science. So it looks like grouping for tracking was (very often) done badly. Could be, but even if so, that would not be an argument against tracking, of course. It would simply mean that placement of students into the right classes needed to be done better. Of course, it could also be that the study had systematic flaws. For example, if a study found that remedial students at Harvard were more academically advanced and able than honors students at Podunk Community College, that would hardly be grounds to question the legitimacy of the labels "remedial" and "honors"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 113 |
As long as everyone is being taught at their approximate level, how could it possibly matter if there are measurable demographic differences between the classes? I've never seen any convincing argument not to do what I'm suggesting. Educational research shows that mid- and low-ability students benefit from being in classrooms with higher-ability students. I believe the research also shows that higher-ability students do not benefit from this, at least academically, but they also do not actually suffer. This research is why "tracking" went away. Obviously, it's a lot messier and more complex in the real world. No, they do suffer - they are deprived of an academic opportunity, and they do often suffer from under-challenge (there is a long, well-known, list: lack of organisational skills, perfectionism, inattention, etc. - there are posts here about this all the time.)
|
|
|
|
|
